Siyabonga Sithole|Published
The Airports Company South Africa (ACSA) has been compelled to withdraw its latest security Request for Quotation (RFQ) due to a court application filed by Eagle Eye Security Company. The firm, embroiled in escalating tensions over airport security contracting, sought an urgent interdict from the Western Cape High Court, aiming to protect its interests in the face of a competitive and contentious procurement process.
Bidders told to disregard RFQ
The RFQ, numbered 10642, was issued on October 16, 2026, for the provision of security services at George Airport. However, less than a week later, ACSA released an internal memo stating the immediate retraction of the RFQ.
The memo reads: "We refer to the invitation issued on 16 October 2026 requesting your participation in the (RFQ) for the provision of security services at Airports Company South Africa-George Airport. Please be advised that ACSA hereby formally withdraws and retracts the above-mentioned RFQ invitation with immediate effect."
As a result, ACSA has told all the bidders to disregard the RFQ until further notice.
"Accordingly, all recipients are requested to disregard the RFQ invitation and refrain from submitting any quotations in response thereto. Should ACSA elect to reissue the RFQ, all prospective bidders will be formally notified through the appropriate procurement communication platforms."
Eagle Eye seeks urgent court relief
In the court documents dated October 21, 2026, the firm had requested that their application be heard on Tuesday, October 27, 2026, at 10h00 or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. The request is a desperate plea, highlighting the implications of the ongoing security bidding intricacies that underpin the safety of South Africa’s airports.
In Part A of Eagle Eye's application, they ask the court for interim relief, which would allow them to bypass certain procedural requirements that typically govern court applications. This urgent basis for the application speaks to the firm's concerns that without swift judicial intervention, ACSA may move forward with actions that could severely disadvantage Eagle Eye in the ongoing tender process.
The application's critical request emphasises that ACSA, its employees, agents, and representatives should be restricted from evaluating or adjudicating any quotations submitted under RFQ 10642, at least until Part B of this application is completed.
Furthermore, this includes a ban on any decisions regarding preferred bidders, as well as communication regarding awards or contracts linked to this specific RFQ.
Firm challenges four-day compliance period
The sequence of events is particularly notable, as ACSA has recently come under regulatory scrutiny over its security procurement processes.
Earlier this year, another urgent application was lodged to stall the award of a lucrative tender for aviation security services covering the nation’s three busiest international airports. Adding to the backdrop of legal disputes, a previous case involving ACSA and Mafoko Security Patrols resulted from the cancellation of a multi-billion rand "smart security" tender focused on advanced screening technology at airports.
Eagle Eye has raised objections specifically to ACSA’s compressed timeline, arguing that the four-day compliance window offered was insufficient for any meaningful internal review. According to their appeal, this truncated timeline, coupled with unclear terms within the RFQ, made it impossible to formulate competitive bids.
"There is therefore insufficient time for an internal process to be pursued and concluded before the decision takes effect. Requiring the exhaustion in these circumstances would risk leaving the applicant without effective relief and allowing the impugned process to be completed before the review can be determined."